[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#74633] [PATCH v2] ui: Search channels for guix extensions
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
[bug#74633] [PATCH v2] ui: Search channels for guix extensions |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Dec 2024 22:08:52 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Hi Brian,
Brian Kubisiak <brian@kubisiak.com> skribis:
> * guix/describe.scm (add-channels-to-load-path!): New function.
> * gnu/packages.scm (%package-module-path): Call new function. Remove
> the code that the function call replaces.
> * guix/ui.scm (extension-directories): Call new function. Search
> channels for guix extensions.
> * guix/self.scm (compiled-guix)[*core-modules*]: Add 'guile-git' to
> the list of extensions.
>
> Change-Id: I53af828dc554485ca28389c9e2653ea6b4fb6b7e
Overall LGTM. I tested it with ‘make as-derivation’ and it works as
advertised; ‘strace -c’ shows that the number of syscalls is comparable
to that we currently have.
A couple of minor comments:
> +++ b/gnu/packages.scm
> @@ -148,15 +148,16 @@ (define %package-module-path
> (let* ((not-colon (char-set-complement (char-set #\:)))
> (environment (string-tokenize (or (getenv "GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH") "")
> not-colon))
> - (channels-scm channels-go (package-path-entries)))
> + (channels-scm (package-path-entries)))
This variable is now unused; I think it can be removed.
> +(define add-channels-to-load-path!
> + (let ((promise
> + (delay
> + (let-values (((channels-scm channels-go) (package-path-entries)))
> + (set! %load-path
> + (append %load-path channels-scm))
> + (set! %load-compiled-path
> + (append %load-compiled-path channels-go))))))
> + (lambda ()
> + "Automatically add channels to Guile's search path. Channels are added
> +to the end of the path so they don't override Guix' own modules. This
> +function ensures that channels are only added to the search path once even if
> +it is called multiple times."
> + (force promise))))
For clarity, I would call this ‘append-channels-to-load-path!’.
Using a promise here works, but I find it slightly misleading (because
we’re using it for side effects) and a bit heavyweight (promises are
thread-safe, so there’s a mutex etc.).
How about this:
(define (append-channels-to-load-path!)
(let-values (…)
…)
(set! append-channels-to-load-path! (lambda () #t)))
?
Could you send a v3 along these lines, if you think that makes sense?
Thanks,
Ludo’.